Of the Greek poets almost none is as difficult to translate as
Aeschylus, and of his surviving plays, the Supplices holds a
special place
because of its unusually mangled textual transmission and its unique
design, which until a papyrus discovery in 1952 led almost everyone to
conclude it was by far the earliest surviving tragedy. Peter Burian, like
others before him, senses the raw beauty of much of the poetry, especially
in the lyrics, and the "prodigious thematic density of the text" (xv). Two
formal decisions mark the translation. First, Burian translates the
strophic lyric sections with "strict syllabic responsion" between strophe
and antistrophe, thereby creating some sense of the structure of the Greek
lyric systems. Second, in order to highlight the articulations between
song and speech which create the basic dynamic of Greek drama, he
translates the spoken dialogue into a "relaxed blank verse." Two other
views, one smaller, one larger, also inform the translation. In his desire
to capture the verbal connections between different sections of the text
he "found himself constantly risking what might seem to be
overtranslations" (xv). He also explains that he considers his translation
a "form of writing, not designed to reproduce, much less replace,
an existing text, but to complement it and extend its life" (xviii).

Burian has a good ear and the English reads well, often capturing the rich
and bold language of the original. Rendering the lyrics into stanzas of
identical syllabic length creates some sense of the formality of Greek
lyric. The varying length of individual lines within a stanza, although
it corresponds to nothing specific in the Greek, allows the reader to get
an idea of the varying length of verse in the Greek strophic system. The
"relaxed blank verse" of the dialogue (often very relaxed) contrasts
effectively with the lyrics. My reservations are on points of detail. In
the course of translating a 1,000-plus line play the translator makes
innumerable decisions. Many, even most, of Burian's seem sensible and work
well, but there are many others which strike me as odd. All translation
offers interpretation and, as Burian
acknowledges, at times he overtranslates to capture some of the verbal
connections in the play. For example, at 190 the phrase SA/KOS
A)/RRHKTON, a
traditional image, is rendered "a shield no man can penetrate," a
translation which highlights the recurrent sexual motifs of the play.
While Benardete's more subtle "a shield impenetrable" might be preferable,
the overtranslation has, at least, some point. Similarly, the attempt to
capture the alleged verbal play in GENOU= POLUMNH/STWR (535) with
"remember your long wooing" can be justified (and is explained in the
notes). But there are many examples of words left untranslated, rhetorical
structures ignored, and changed metaphors where the reason for the
omission or alteration is unclear. A few examples (of many
possible ones): CUNTI/QHSI (65), which adds an interesting point, is
omitted; GA/MON (106), so thematically important, is not recognizable
in translation; the metaphor in 327 is changed; the repetition of
PO/LIS at verse-final position at 357-8, is not carried over in
translation; POLUPO/NWN (382) is ignored. There is also no
instance of antilabe in Aeschylus; yet in the dialogue Burian
frequently breaks off lines half-way, thereby distorting the tight formal
structure of the
original. Although any of the individual instances I have noted (or
noticed) might be thought small, the collective effect is of a
Supplices
different from Aeschylus' in unnecessary ways with no apparent gain.

The introduction to the work ("On Translating the Suppliants,"
"The Danaid Myth and Aeschylus' Tetralogy," "Reading Aeschylus'
Suppliants,"
and "A Note on the Text") is helpful and the first section on Burian's
process of translation offers an interesting glimpse of his approach to
his task. The notes which follow the translation (55-60) are good, but
would be more helpful if more plentiful. In particular more notes on the
translation might allow the reader a better sense of where and why Burian
departs from Aeschylus. As in many translations -- for reasons which
mystify me -- the only line numbers given are for the translation without
even headers to indicate the corresponding lines in the original.
Translation and original are, thankfully, only slightly out of sync. The
production by Princeton University Press is of a very high quality and the
paperback price affordable. In general the translation should be
considered a qualified success. Although I would not recommend this book
for the classroom (with all its modifications of Aeschylus close analysis
would not be easy), it is a lively interpretation of this difficult,
important, and too often neglected text.